a United States Office of Water EPA 841-R-96-002 Environmental Protection (4503F) June 1996 Agency Reprint September 1996 SEPA —_ Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States This report describes water quality in the United States using a set of 18 environmental indicators that measure progress toward national water goals and objectives. The indicators were chosen through an intensive multi-year process involving public and private partners including EPA’s Office of Water in collaboration with the Center for Marine Conservation; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation and Office of Research and Devel- opment; the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality; Native American Tribes; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; The Nature Conservancy; the States; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey.a vy UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SZ : WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 eo MAY 2.0 1996 OFFICE OF WATER Dear Reader: The Office of Water and our many partners are pleased to present the first national water environmental indicators report. This report is the result of an extensive collaborative effort over the past several years, and | wish to thank all of those involved for their hard work and commitment. Many indicators contain data from Federal or private agencies other than the Environmental Protection Agency, Some are the result of collaborative efforts, for instance when States and Tribes, report information into national databases. All indicators have been chosen and shaped through extensive public meetings and reviews, The information presented in this report will be used in three ways: (1) to characterize the quality of our waters, giving us an environmental equivalent fo economic indicators; (2) to chart our progress in meeting water quality goals; and (3) to help determine if our programs to solve water quality problems are working. The report presents the indicators on a national scale. The indicators also work at smaller geographic scales, for instance State, Tribal, and watershed. Eight States -- Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin -- are conducting specific pilot projects to test the indicators, and the State results, due in late summer 1996, will help us further refine both the indicators and the monitoring and data programs that support them: Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States is the first report in a series that, when taken together, will show trends in water quality over time, For some of the indicators, the data presented here is complete enough to represent a baseline or report on trends at this time. For others, however, improvements to the data are needed before a baseline can be established. We ‘and our many private and public partners are committed to improving the data supporting all of the indicators. Each subsequent report, therefore, will document not only any changes that have occurred in the indicators, but also the progress we have made to improve the data As a first step in improving the indicators, we solicit your comments on this report. Your suggestions will help us to refine the indicators and to ensure their usefulness for different purposes and at multiple geographic scales. Please send your comments to the address given on the inside back cover. Thank you again to all our partners in this significant step towards environmental accountability. Robert Perciasepe Assistant Administrator Recycladecyclabe «Prted wih Vegetable 01 Based inks on 100% Risyded Paper (40% Posiconsumer)JUNE 1996 Nv. vi. Vil. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States National Environmental Goals and Objectives for Water... Water Quality Objectives and Indicators. Introduction. Water Resources. Human Activities and Their Effect on Water Quality. Water Quality Objectives and Indicators. Objective I: Conserve and Enhance Public Health. Objective Il: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems. Objective Ill: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards... Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions. Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors. Water Quality Monitoring and Information Management Conclusior References...National Environmental Goals for Water CLEAN WATERS: America’s rivers, lakes, and coastal waters will support healthy communities of fish, plants, and ‘other aquatic life, and will support uses such as fishing, swimming, and drinking water supply for people. Wetlands will be protected and retabilitated to provide wildlife habitat, reduce floods, and improve water quality. Ground waters will bee cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses, ‘SAFE DRINKING WATER: Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink Note: Goals taken from Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency. Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D-96-002. Washington, DC: USEPA. In press. Water Objectives to Meet These Goals Objectives are measured by indicators presented in this report ‘Conserve | Conserve. & Enhance | & Enhance Public Health | Aquatic Ecosystems ‘Support Uses Designated by States & Tribes InThae Wate Quay Sanords a ee Senate ama peY mmccrcrrrenentnino | Bae £ _£ ¥ £ £ £ ¥ a a Water Management Programs and Human Activities Affect Our Waters ‘The objectives adopted by EPA's Office of Water and its partners are shown above. These objectives are like building blocks in a pyramid, where success in reaching the goals atthe top is dependent on successful attainment of those lower in the pyramid, For example, by reducing pollutant loads to waters, the overall quality, or ambient condition, of the water and sediment is improved. Consequently, the waters can support the uses designated for them by states and tribes in their water quality standards, Ultimately, the health of both the general public and aquatic ecosystems is protected. Indicator Data Completeness Indicators are used to show changes in environmental conditions and are only as good as the quality of the measurements that support them, The indicators presented in this report contain measurements of varying quality. These measurements might differ in precision, accuracy, statistical representativeness, and completeness. This comprehensive national report uses data from many agencies. While these data sources have undergone data quality assessment by their respective agencies, this first national report ‘makes no attempt to describe data quality attributes other than completeness for the indicators. This report includes data of varying quality for two reasons: (1) the indicator describes an important, if as yet imperfect, way to measure a national objective, and (2) efforts are under way to improve indicator measurements in future reports. Further details onthe data used to support each indicator are presented in individual fact sheets available from EPA in hard copy or on the Internet at the address at the end of this report Each indicator graphic in this report shows the level of data completeness using the following symbols: © Dataconsistenvisufficient data collected Data somewhat consistenVadditional data needed O Data need to be much more consistent/much additional data neededWater Quality Objectives and Indicators Objective |: Conserve and Enhance Public Health 1. Population served by community drinking water systems violating health-based requirements—Population served by drinking water systems with one or more violations of health-based requirements. 2. Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological pollution—Population served by, and number of, systems that have not met the requirements to filter their water to remove microbio- logical contaminants. 3. Population served by drinking water systems exceeding lead action levels—Population served by, and number of, systems with lead levels in drinking water execeding the regulatory threshold, 4, Source water protection—Number of community drinking water systems using ground water that have pro- ‘grams to protect them from pollution. 5. Fish consumption advisories—Percentage of rivers and lakes with fish that states have determined should not be eaten, or should be eaten in only limited quantities. 6 Shellfish growing water classification—Percentage of estuarine and coastal shellfish growing waters approved for harvest for human consumption. Objective il: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems 7. Biological integrity—Percentage of rivers and estuaries with healthy aquatic communities. 8. Species at risk—Percentage of aquatic and wetland species currently at risk of extinction, 9. Wetland acreage—Rate of wetland acreage loss. Objective II: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards 10. Designated uses in state and tribal water quality standards ‘a. Drinking water supply designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe drinking ‘water supply use, as designated by the states and tribes. b. Fish and shelfish consumption designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support fish and. shellfish consumption, as designated by the states and tribes. ©. Recreation designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support safe recreation, as designated by the states and tribes. 4. Aquatic life designated use—Percentage of assessed waterbodies that can support healthy aquatic life, as ‘designated by the states and tribes. Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions 11. Ground water poltutants—Population exposed to nitrate in drinking water. In the future, the indicator will report the presence of other chemical pollutants in ground water. 12. Surface water pollutants—Trends of selected pollutants found in surface water. 13, Selected coastal surface water pollutants in shellfish—The concentration levels of selected pollutants in oysters ‘and mussels. 14. Estuarine eutrophication conditions—Trends in estuarine eutrophication conditions, 15. Contaminated sediments—Percentage of sites with sediment contamination that might pose a risk to humans and aquatic life Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors 16. Selected point source loadings to (a) surface water and (b) ground water—Trends for selected pollutants discharged from point sources into surface water, and underground injection control wells that are sources of point source loadings into ground water, 17. Nonpoint source loadings to surface water—Amount of soil eroded from cropland that could run into surface ‘waters. Future reports will include additional nonpoint source surface water pollutants as well as sources of ‘nonpoint source ground water pollution. 18, Marine debris—Trends and sources of debris monitored in the marine environment,I. Introduction ur waters are one of our most valuable re- sources. They support human, plant, and ani- ‘mal life and the natural environment; promote economic opportunity; and provide beauty and enjoy- ment to us all ‘The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), working with other federal, state, tribal, regional, lo- cal, and nongovernmental groups, has proposed na- tional goals for many aspects of environmental pro- tection. These goals include Clean Waters and Safe Drinking Water. To check our progress toward the na- tional goals, EPA developed a series of milestones for each goal that set a 10-year target to be reached by the year 2005. In addition, EPA's Office of Water and its partners have adopted five objectives for meeting the Clean Waters and Safe Drinking Water national goals and have developed a series of indicators to measure progress toward those objectives. The relationship among goals, milestones, objectives, and indicators is explained in Figure 1 ‘This report describes the indicators EPA and its part- ners have chosen to measure progress toward water quality objectives. The EPA-proposed national goals, and milestones are described in detail in a separate re- port. This report is the first in a series that, taken to- gether, will show trends over time. For some indica- tors, the data presented here currently provide a baseline for trends. For other indicators, improvements in data are needed to provide a baseline for trends in future reports. By documenting water quality status and trends, EPA will be able to determine whether national ‘water programs are meeting their objectives and to ad- just management strategies accordingly. This report will also provide the public with a better understanding of the condition of our waters, whether they meet the uses we to make of them, and what affects their quality Many people at all levels of government have been working together to choose and describe the indicators. In addition to EPA data, specific data from states, Na- tive American tribes, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Center for Marine Conservation, ‘The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. De- partment of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Geological Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States Survey (USGS) are included. Many others were also integral to the development of the indicators through a series of public meetings and review comments. The indicators inthis first national report will improve iffa strong partnership is maintained among the agen- cies working together to report water quality trends over time. FIGURE jonship of Water Quality Goals, National Goals: A set of 12 national environmen- tal goals with supporting milestones is proposed by EPA in the draft report Environmental Goals for America With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. ‘Two of the goals from this report relate specifically to water: (1) Sate Drinking Water - Every American public water system will provide water that is consistently safe to drink. (2) Clean Waters - America’s rivers, lakes, and ‘coastal waters will support healthy communities of fish, plants, and other aquatic life, and will sup- port uses such as fishing, swimming, and drink- ing water supply for people. Wetlands will be pro- tected and rehabilitated to provide wildlife habi- tat, reduce floods, and improve water quality. Ground waters will be cleaner for drinking and other beneficial uses. Milestones: EPA is proposing milestones as 10-year targets inits national goals repon. They express how {ar the Nation will have progressed toward the na- tional goals by the year 2005, starting from the baseline year of 1995. Each Clean Waters and Safe Drinking Water milestone uses a water quality indi- cator to measure progtess toward the 2005 target. ‘Most of the indicators have a related milestone in the national goals report Water Objectives: The Oifice of Water and its part- ners have adopted five water quality objectives that further specify how to meet the national goals. The objectives are to (1) conserve and enhance public health; (2) conserve and enhance ecosystems; (3) ‘support uses designated by the states and tribes in their water quality standards; (4) conserve and im- prove ambient conditions; and (5) prevent or reduce pollutant loadings and other stressors, Indicators: Indicators measure progress toward water quality goals, milestones, and objectives. In- dicators provide information on environmental and ecosystem quality or give reliable evidence of trends in quality.Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States Environmental Indicators Understanding the condition of our nation’s water re~ sources, identifying what causes problems, and deter- mining how to solve these problems are essential but difficult undertakings. The natural water cycle is itself intricate, and the addition of human activities increases, this complexity. Consequently, answering the basic question “How clean and safe is our water?” is not easy. ‘One way to present the condition of our water resources and the impacts of related human activities is to de- velop understandable measures, or indicators, that sin- gly or in combination provide information on water quality. Managers and scientists can then use this in- formation to develop effective solutions and make sound decisions to protect our water resources. In ad- dition, all Americans can use this information to better understand the condition of our waters. It is important to note that environmental indicators can be used to measure a variety of phenomena. Indicators can present information on status of trends in the state of the envi- ronment, can measure pressures or stressors that de- grade environmental quality, and can evaluate society's responses aimed at improving environmental condi- tions. The first two types of indicators (state of the en- vironment and pressure) deal with information most closely associated with environmental results. The third type measures program and policy responses to en’ ronmental problems and is primarily administrative. II. Water Resources ‘ater resources in the United States take many forms—running freely as rivers and streams; washing against coastlines and into estuaries; pooling as lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands; and moving under the land as ground water. We use these waters for many different purposes, including drinking, swimming, fishing, agriculture, and indus- try. Water resources are affected by many activities, both natural, such as rain, and human, such as water withdrawal and urbanization. Following is a brief de- scription of our water resources and events that affect them, Rivers and Streams There are 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams in the country. About one-third of these flow all the time, and. two-thirds flow only periodically and are dry during a portion of the year. Figure 2 shows selected major U.S. river systems. Rivers and streams supply water for drinking, agriculture, industrial processes, and irriga- tion and support aquatic habitats, fishing, and recre- ation, Rivers and streams are impacted by pollution discharged directly into the water, as well as by pollu- tion generated by activities occurring on land, which rainwater or snowmelt carries into these waterways in the form of runoff. While all three types of indicators are valuable for measuring progress toward goals, this report concen- trates on the actual condition of our water resources. Thus, the indica- tors presented are predominately state of the environment and pres- sure indicators. Societal responses to environmental problems are summarized in this report and in- cluded in the accompanying indi- cator fact sheets, ‘This report describes ournation’s wa- ter resources, human activities and natural events and their effect on wa- ter quality, and the indicators that will be used to measure progress toward goals and objectives. Source: US. EPAEnvironmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States Lakes and Reservoirs There are 41 million acres of lakes and reservoirs in the country. Lakes and reservoirs support the same uses as rivers and streams and are affected by the same types of pollution. These impacts, however, can be more se- vere because lakes and reservoirs do not have the natu- ral flushing process characteristic of flowing streams and rivers. Under the DS] nema nscon MASSACHUSETTS DAYS. MA Estuaries Estuaries are coastal waters where the tides mix fresh river water with ocean salt water. For example, the Chesapeake Bay is a large estuary that receives fresh: water flow from several rivers in Virginia and Mary- land and connects with the Antic Ocean, There are ‘many other smaller estuaries all along the coastline of the United States—in total, over 34,000 square miles, of estuaries. Estuaries are noted for their unique aquatic habitats, as well as for the fishing, shellfishing, and other recre- ational and economic opportuni- ties they provide. Estuaries are in increasing danger of pollution considering that almost half the U.S. population now lives in sanvecareay| Coastal areas, many on estu oeuwane | Figure 3 shows the location of the manoears | estuaries identified by EPA and states under the National Estuary Program (NEP). An NEP desig- incon nation recognizes the national sig- nificance of these estuaries and initiates a consensus-based, com- prehensive management process to protect these resources, Soutea: US. EPA Ground Water Source: U.S. Geological Survey Because ground water flows be- neath the earth’s surface, itis hard to map the aquifers in which it re- sides or to know the overall qual- ity of ground water in the United States. Figure 4 shows the esti- mated location of the principal ground water aquifers of the United States. Ground water flows are usually slower than surface waters and are replenished by in- teraction with streams, rivers, and wetlands and by precipitation that seeps through the soil, Ground wa- ter also can replenish other water- bodies by maintaining base flow to streams, rivers, and wetlands. Ground water provides almostEnvironmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States one-fourth of all water used in the country, serving ag- ricultural, industrial, and drinking water needs. Waste disposal, contaminated rmoff, and polluted surface wa- ters can degrade ground water quality Wetlands Wetlands include swamps, marshes, tundra, bogs, and other areas that are saturated with water for varying periods of time. Under normal circumstances, these areas support plants specifically adapted to saturated conditions. Seeping water from wetlands can recharge ‘ground water supplies. Unaltered wetlands in a flood- plain can reduce flooding. The natural water filtration and sediment control capabilities of wetlands help main- tain surface and ground water quality. More than 200 million acres of wetlands existed in the lower 48 states during colonial times. Less than half remain today, how- ever, largely due to conversion to agricultural, urban, or suburban land, Wetland water quality can be im- pacted by many of the same sources that affect other surface water resources. III. Human Activities and Their Effect on Water Quality Urbanization, dams, forestry practices, and agricultural development all impact the quality of our waters. Rain- fall and snowmelt runoff from urban areas—those ar- eas dominated by paved roads, parking lots, rooftops, and other similar impervious surfaces where pollution collects—can alter stream characteristics and habitat increase pollutant loads and water temperature, and r. duce the diversity of aquatic life. As the percentage of imperviousness in an area increases, the quality of ad~ jacent or receiving waterbodies decreases. Highly de- veloped commercial and business districts are estimated to be 85 percent impervious, while even our least de- veloped urban areas—suburban residential districts with L-acte lots—are considered to be about 20 per- cent impervious. Distinct water quality problems are observed at relatively low levels of imperviousness (10 to 20 percent). Similarly, agriculture and forestry practices can lead to water quality problems. Clear-cutting forests and removing streambank vegetation result in increased ero- sion rates, as well as more severe and frequent flood: ing, as the natural runoff storage capacity in veg: tion, wetlands, and soil is reduced. Figure 6, from the ULS. Department of Agriculture’s National Resources Inventory, depicts the amount of surface area in the United States that is developed land (urban), agricul- tural land, forest land, or a mix of these uses, and fed- eral land, Bach land use type results in different im- ‘uman activities have a Hee cera 5 Population nd Economie row 108) water resources. The population in the United States eereee ee has grown from approximately [2 Pesuaton 7 30 million in 1860 to 260 mil- as lion in 1990. At the same time, 300 Dy the U.S. economy has expanded. 12 Figure 5 shows both population 250 and economic growth over the A last four decades. Although 3 economic growth can occur = 450 hand-in-hand with environmen- 2 {al protection and restoration, it 2 100 can alter both our land and wa- & ter. As a result, it is important ED that we work to understand these effects in order to capitalize on on beneficial changes and prevent "960, 1970 t980 1980 or minimize harmful ones, Sowee: US Census and US. Depariment of Commercepacts that must be addressed by appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, and individual efforts to improve and conserve the quality of our waters. IV. Water Quality Objectives and Indicators n the following section, indicators of water quality are discussed according to how they measure their respective water quality objectives: public health, ecosystem health, designated uses, ambient conditions, and pollutant loadings. Although the indicators are pre- sented on a national level, they also can be used at a state or watershed level. These indicators could pro- vide a consistent core set of data to be used at all geo- graphic levels. Managers at the state and watershed levels, however, will probably want to add specific in- dicators of their own. Objective |: Conserve and Enhance Public Health We use many of our waters to supply drinking water ‘and fish and shellfish for human consumption, as well as for recreation. There are times, however, when poor water quality limits these uses. Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States Reducing the risk of drinking contaminated water hasbeen a priority for public health agencies and EPA for many ‘years. Public water systems manage surface and ground ‘water supplies across the country to make them safe to drink, Most Americans can safely drink their tap wa- ter, although the number of water systems continuing to violate health standards and posing a risk to public health remains too high. Figure 7 shows the number of community water systems in each state that are regu- lated by EPA and the states under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Although most of these systems use ground water as their principal water supply source, approxi- ‘mately 63 percent of the population served is provided water from systems using surface water. Fish and shellfish have become more widely used asa source of low-fat, high-quality protein foods. Consump- tion of contaminated fish and shellfish, however, can pose a risk to human health. As fish prey on the species below them in the food chain, concentrations of chemi- cal contaminants can increase, reaching levels many times greater than those found in the water and increas- ing the risk to humans and other animals higher in the food chain, Also, microbial contamination of shellfish remains a problem. We sometimes take for granted that our favorite beaches and swimming holes are safe for swimming, water-ski- ing, and boating. However, waters that become pol: luted can pose a health risk to people who choose to play in them, At times, states or FIGURE 6: Domi CoveriUse Types, 1992 Source: U.S. Department of Agiculture towns are forced to close beaches due to high levels of bacterial contamination. These closures are undertaken as precautionary mea- sures to prevent the outbreak or spread of disease resulting from swimming in polluted waters State health departments track the number of disease outbreaks from swimming in all kinds of waters. EPA is encouraging states to re- port information on beach clo- sures and disease outbreaks to ob- tain a national perspective on these issues In the future, EPA would like to add nationwide indicators on the quality of our recreational waters.Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States ‘Such information is available from individual states and, tribes, but not on a consistent nationwide level, In the ‘meantime, state and local health departments should be contacted for information on conditions in particular areas. INDICATOR 1: Population served by community drinking water systems violating health-based requirements EPA and the states regulate approximately 200,000 pub- lic drinking water systems that serve over 240 million people. (Public water systems are defined as systems that provide piped water for human consumption to at least 15 service connections or serve an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days each year. Approxi- mately 60,000 of these water systems are known as com- munity drinking water systems—systems that provide water to the same population year-round. The remain- ing 120,000 are non-community water systems that pro- vide drinking water for non-residential use (e.g., work- places, schools, restaurants)), ‘The concentration of contaminants in drinking water sys- tems is strictly controlled by health-based requirements established to minimize or eliminate risk to human health, ‘These health-based requirements address several areas including surface water treatment, total coliform, lead and copper treatment, and chemicaV/radiological con- tamination. When violations of these requirements oc- cur, water systems must remove DO eau g Cag aR cS Cen ety Reueseeer er ued 81% - compete ‘Percent of Fopaaon Served By Sym with ast ang een lo Gree opa amas elon Source State data in EPA Safe Drnkng Water infomation Systor, 1994 Proposed Miteion: By 305 the popultn eve y commit wale ten olton of eal segurement wl be rededfm 19 to pace Note Related Miletone-The US. Deparment of Health and Human Services (HHS) in its Healthy People 2000 report hss established & similar target forthe year 2000 that complements the EPA milestone related to Indicator. The HHS target i: [By 2000,] Increase toot leat 85 percent te poration of people who receive supply of dink ing water that mets these drinking Water standards extablished by EPA. the contaminants and notify the public or face severe penalties un- der EPA and state regulatory pro- grams. This indicator displays the popu- lation served by community drink- ing water systems in 1994 that violated one or more health-based requirements, More than 80 per~ cent of the population is served by community drinking water sys- tems that reported no violations of these requirements during the past year. Indicators 2 and 3 show ‘more detailed information on two of the health-based requirements, filtration treatment and lead in drinking, water. FIGURE 7: Number of Community Drinking Water Systems by State J ‘Source. Safe Drinking Water Information Systm, 1385 5 633 Total Community Water Systeme 0-600 Community Water Systems 601 - 1200 Community Water Systems 1201 - 1800 Community Water Systems > 1800 Community Water SystemsDEC COCR eed urease . [completeness Pen (on) 1.000 130 0 Syme Systems Systems Source: Stata data n EPA Safe Dining Walt Inlormation System, 1004 Proposed Milestone: By 205, evry pion ene by ape was oye ‘a aw fo an unprotected ie ak, reserve wil ceive ang water that ely ered. eet tne carey COUR nun Ee ear ee eeu 8 Population Served (milions) 8 2 10 ” Systems Systeme ° 1530 3180 81-130 130 Lead Action Level Exceedance (ppt) Source: State data in EPA Sale Dining Wate Information Systm, 1905 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States INDICATOR 2: Population served by unfiltered surface water systems at risk from microbiological pollution Drinking water systems supplied by surface waters can sometimes withdraw water that contains harmful lev- els of disease-causing microbiological contaminants, such as Giardia lamblia, Legionella, and viruses. Un- der the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), EPA and the states require all inadequately protected drink- ing water systems using surface water sources to disin- fect and install filtration treatment to remove these mi- crobiological contaminants from the drinking water. Compliance with the rule will dramatically reduce the probability of human exposure to harmful levels of mi- crobiological contaminants from surface water sources. This indicator displays the population provided water by unfiltered community water systems that did not comply with the SWTR in 1993. In 1993, over 12 mil- lion people were provided drinking water from more than 1,000 unfiltered community water systems not in compliance with the SWTR. Through aggressive ac- tion by EPA, the states, and the water systems, the risk of human exposure to microbiological contaminants is being reduced. By the end of fiscal year 1995, the num- ber of water systems not complying with the SWTR was reduced from 1,000 to 400, with most of the progress being made in small and medium water sys- tems, However, the population at risk has not dropped as dramatically—from 12 million to 9.9 million— primarily because of the time needed for completing infrastructure improvements. INDICATOR 3: Population served by community drinking water systems exceeding lead action levels EPA estimates that 20 percent of human exposure to lead is attributable to lead in drinking water. Lead en- ters drinking water through pipes in the distribution system, service lines, and household plumbing, includ- ing faucets and other fixtures. Lead in drinking water is controllable through actions taken by water systems and their customers EPA, under its Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), requires that water systems follow a series of steps to reduce the likelihood of lead entering the drinking water from distribution system materials. Water systems are re-Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States quired to monitor for lead in their distribution systems, and to take action when lead in more than 10 percent of the samples taken at the tap exceeds the regulatory action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb). Depending on the size and type of the system, remedial actions range from establishing a public education program to imple- ‘menting corrosion control treatment or replacing lead pipes. EPA requires large systems to install lead con- trols regardless of sampling results. This indicator measures the population provided water by community water systems that have exceeded lead action levels and are required to take corrective action. It is not a precise predictor of the risk of exposure to the general population provided water by the targeted water systems. The monitoring results reflect the situ- ation in only the worst portions of the distribution sys- tem and represent only the relative probability of risk for consumers who rely on those targeted water sys- tems, Based on the results of lead monitoring through fiscal year 1995, 69.1 million people were provided drinking water by water systems that exceeded the action level of 15 ppb at least once. Of that number, 42.8 million people were provided water by systems where sam- pling results showed lead levels between 15 and 30 ppb, and 26.3 million people received water from systems where sampling results showed lead levels over 30 ppb, which EPA views as a significant exceedance. About 2.1 million people received water from water systems where sampling results showed lead levels greater than 130 ppb. Higher exceedances increase the probability that people consuming water are at risk. INDICATOR 4: Source water protection To protect our sources of drinking water even before water is withdrawn by a drinking water supplier, EPA, states, and tribes have instituted the Source Water Pro- tection Program. EPA also continues to promote ground water protection efforts through legislation, grants, and partnerships for state programs. Currently, EPA’s fo- cus in the Source Water Protection Program is on pro- tecting ground water used for drinking water. The re- sulting Wellhead Protection Program covers four prin- cipal activities: (1) delineating a wellhead protection area (the protected area around a drinking water sup- ply well), (2) identifying potential sources of contami- nation, (3) developing a contingency plan in case of a threat to the drinking water source, and (4) developing ‘a source management plan to control potential sources of contamination. In the future, the Source Water Pro- tection Program will be extended to surface waters. This indicator shows that approximately 18,700 of al- most 60,000 surface and ground water community drink- ing water systems (31 percent) have initiated the Source Water Protection Program and 3,800 systems (6 per- cent) are covered by all four parts of the ground water protection program. EPA has established a milestone for 60 percent of the population, which corresponds to 50 percent (30,000) of all community drinking water systems, to have source water protection programs in place by 2005, INDICATOR 5: Fish consumption advisories States issue fish consumption advisories to alert an- glers of risks associated with eating fish from rivers and lakes that are contaminated by chemical pollutants. Some tribes also use state advisories on their own wa- ters. A fish consumption advisory can involve one or more of the following warnings: (1) do not eat any fish ey Reema cre compisteness| £0,000 IDENTIFYING | TAKING ACTION Tate Soace wat promsice opr for 3 000 comet “dking wae systems se 205 milestone uber of Comment Drinking We ‘wn Soures Water ro owen Sowee Source: State Bernal Welhead Reports to EPA, 1953 posed Mitton’ By 2008, percat ofthe population seed by cxenmomty war sytem wl eee hl water roms wh souEnvironmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States ory [auReceues uu emda 20% 3 i 3 Percentage of Lake Acres and Fiver Miles ‘wih ish Consumption Advisores z ase Peers ‘Source: State data reported to EPA's Ofiee of Science and Technology, 1098 Ierer trea} TRC Aero Lede SApproved ‘mm Conditionally Approved oRestricted emm Prohibited Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admbistraton, 1990, caught in a certain area; (2) eat only a specified limited amount of fish, particularly if you are in a high-risk group (e.g., pregnant women or young children); or eat fish only after special preparation States and tribes report that 14 percent of total lake acres and 4 percent of total river miles have one or more fish consumption advisories. EPA is working with state and tribal agencies to link fish consumption advisory information with assessments of the fish and shellfish consumption designated use set by state water quality standards. INDICATOR 6: Shellfish growing water classification Shellfish growing waters are classified by individual states using the guidelines set forth in the National Shell- fish Sanitation Program (NSSP) manuals of operation. ‘These manuals are written and periodically updated by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission (ISSC), which includes representatives from the states, the shelifishing industry, and the federal government. Every 5 years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in cooperation with the ISSC and EPA, produces the National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters. The Register reports the classifica- tions of all coastal and estuarine shelifish growing wa- ters. These waters are classified as one of the follow- ing: (1) approved (harvest is allowed at all times), (2) conditionally approved (harvest is allowed at certain times depending on environmental conditions), (3) re~ stricted (harvest is allowed if shellfish undergo a: ing or purification process), (4) conditionally restricted (harvest is allowed at certain times depending on envi- ronmental conditions and whether the shellfish undergo a cleansing or purification process, or (5) prohibited (harvest is not allowed at any time). The Register also reports on the actual and potential sources of pollution that cause a shellfish growing water to be classified as, anything other than approved. In 1990, there were 17 million acres of classified shell- fish growing waters in U.S. coastal areas, with 63 per- cent approved for shellfish harvest—a 6 percent de- cline from 1985. Of the other 37 percent, 9 percent ‘were conditionally approved for harvest, 3 percent were classified as restricted, and 25 percent were classified as prohibited.Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States EPA and NOAA are considering how NOAA's shell- fish growing waters data can be correlated with state assessments of attainment of the fish and shellfish con- sumption designated use set by state water quality stan- dards (see Indicator 106) Objective Il: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems Clean water is also critical to the health and survival of, ‘most plant and animal species. Water quality encom- passes not only the chemical composition of the water, but also its physical and biological properties. Impaired aquatic habitats can cause a severe decline or even ex- tinction of an aquatic species and aquatic-dependent wildlife. The quality of the biological communities can be used as an indicator of the cumulative effect of all chemical and physical stressors on the waterbody. Sometimes the conditions in a waterbody might appear suitable for aquatic life, but the absence of healthy and diverse aquatic life might indicate water quality problems that have gone undetected. Assessing the ability of the ‘waterbody to support aquatic life isthe first step in ensur- ing healthy biological communities, referred to as “bio- logical integrity.” The next step is determining the kind and abundance of plants and animals found in the water- body, referred to as “biological diversity.” Aquatic plant and animal habitats that are degraded or modified can also be indicators of poor water quality. INDICATOR 7: Biological integrity Assessing a waterbody for healthy biological communi- ties isa complex process, and the science to do so is newer than that used in chemical monitoring, Biological integ- rity can be measured using fish, macroinvertebrates, or plants, including algae. The Intergovernmental Task Force ‘on Monitoring Water Quality recommends that at least two of these three assemblages be used together to make an accurate assessment. The extent of biological integ- rity is determined by comparing the monitored site against “reference site” that exhibits the desired characteristics. Assessing waterbodies for biological integrity is impor- tant because it takes into account the cumulative effects of a wide variety of stressors. This indicator shows data from (1) 31 states that cur- rently have comprehensive biological monitoring pro- grams in streams and wadeable rivers and (2) EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), which uses biological monitoring to evaluate estuaries. States were able to assess only 9 percent of, their rivers for biological integrity; of those, 50 percent were found to have healthy aquatic communities. EMAP assessed 50 percent of the Nation’s estuaries using a statistically representative sampling design and found that 74 percent of estuaries have healthy aquatic com- munities. Methods for biological monitoring in lakes are under development; consequently, there are not enough data yet to confidently report the number of lakes that sup- port healthy aquatic life. EPA and its partners are work- ing together to strengthen biological monitoring pro- ‘grams, assess more waters in this fashion, and gather better data for supporting this indicator. INDICATOR 8: Species at risk In assessing the biological diversity and integrity of a waterbody, it is important to determine whether the aquatic species that should naturally exist in the waters are actually there and at the expected population size. erry rear *) Vout ape Cooma 3 i 9% Assessed |soure: EPA EMAP, 1954, ad state bloga! montonng dat, 1002-1994 repos ston By 2005, 6 pers of th Nanos nrc wales wT soot hey aqua communiserrr) ETc Rie une Percent at Fick Amprivians agentes INDICATOR 2 a, ee a3 q = ai #3 ie "moves me atte ealy 00s Sour: US. Fi and Wide Serve, 1990 Dela "eH US. Deparment of Agel, 1992 (Osta excuses eset ropesed Milsons By 2005, ere wl bam nme res of ast 100.00 ace wean, thereby supporting alae aq fe mproweg eater quality, and preventing beat and propet-daraging Moos ad Goo Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States Oftentimes, declines in natural aquatic species can be attributed to factors such as poor water quality and habi- tat loss. Both The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in cooperation with states and tribes, keep data that show which native plant and animal species are at risk (TNC) or are legally listed as endangered (USFWS). This indicator uses data from TNC and the state Natural Heritage Network and shows the proportion of species dependent on freshwater aquatic or wetland habitats that are at risk. Currently, the groups of animals at greatest risk overall are those dependent on aquatic systems. More than 60 percent of freshwater mussels and crayfish are at risk, the high- est imperilment ratio documented for any group of plants and animals in the United States. INDICATOR 9: Wetland acreage Wetlands are especially important habitats for many different kinds of aquatic species. An estimated 80 per- cent of the Nation's coastal fisheries and one-third of its endangered species depend on wetlands for spawn- ing, nursery areas, and food sources. Wetlands are home to millions of waterfowl and other birds, plants, mam- ‘mals, and reptiles. Protecting the quantity and quality of wetlands is important to the continued abundance of healthy and diverse aquatic species. This indicator shows historical wetland loss, which has been significant. The average annual rate of wetland loss, however, has slowed to less than 90,000 acres per year. Ultimately, there will be a net increase in wet- land acreage. Objective III: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards ‘The Clean Water Act requires states and, if authorized, Native American tribes to adopt water quality standards that include uses they designate for their waterbodies or waterbody segments. These designated uses reflect the way we want to use our waterbodies and include such things as supplying clean drinking water, providing fish and shellfish safe for human consumption, allowing safe swimming and other forms of recreation, and supporting healthy aquatic life. State/tribal water quality standardsEnvironmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States establish the goals of and provide the requirements for the Nation's water quatity-based improvement programs. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that states survey, assess, and report on the degree to which their surface waters support the designated uses. Some Native American tribes also submit this information ‘The results of the assessments are reported to EPA ev- ery 2 years. Data from the reports are then aggregated to form the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress (the national 305(b) Report), which por- trays the status of the Nation’s waters assessed during that period, Most states cannot assess all theit waters in a 2-year period. As a result, EPA is working with the states to change the 305(b) Report to a 5-year report that de- scribes national, state, and tribal waters comprehen- sively. For the 2-year period reported in the 1994 305(b) report, states and tribes assessed 42 percent of lakes and reservoirs, 78 percent of estuaries, and 17 percent of all rivers and streams, usually targeting their moni- toring efforts to areas of particular interest. The as- sessment figure for rivers and streams rises to 48 per- cent if the intermittent waters that are dry during por- tions of the year are excluded. INDICATOR 10a: Drinking water supply designated use States and tribes evaluate the quality of their waters as sources for drinking water supplies. This does not mean. that the water is safe to drink directly from the source, but rather that with conventional treatment the water can be safely distributed for public consumption. In the EPA guidance to the states for the fiscal year 1996 305(b) Report, EPA defines conventional treatment as disinfection and filtration treatment only. This indicator shows that of the rivers and lakes assessed and reported on for the 1994 305(b) Report, 87 percent of the lake acres and 83 percent of the river miles that supply drinking water systems support this use. INDICATOR 10b: Fish and shellfish consumption designated use Just as the states and tribes report to EPA on the quality of their waters for supplying drinking water systems, Creare TU AVelemet a eee uc il a ? Soute: National Water Guay Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. 1995; 17 peroet of all rand stream miles (48 percent of constary towing mls), 2 porent fake and rowel acres, and 78 porcort ot cetuarina equre mics wore assessed. iy 05,90 perc oie Nao eve, eae ke, sneer esate a hiking wer spies Wl pov water al UCC ener nee Cun wo 10% Fer (2) Les (ley Esuarse ” Exuaes sy (sa) Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress, 1905, 17 percent o al ever and steam mle (48 percent ot constanty ‘town ris), #2 prcon of ake and ecenvol aces, and 78 poreant ot Propose Wikio: By 2005 90209 percent fh Noa Fad aad harvest eas wil provide fo ate fo ppl od wide teat13, Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States (eerie cee unee eureka Percant of Assessed Wateroces tat Moet ‘summing snd GtorFecroston esgratas Use Pear Swimming C)Other Recreation las saree Source: Nations) Water Quay Invention: 1984 Report to Congress, 1005; 17 poreat of al ver an seam mls (48 percent ot constant ‘owing mio), 42 parcnt ot iake and reser acres, and 78 percent ot ‘estuarine square miles wore assessed [Proposed weston: By 205,95 cet of te Nation ce wares wile | sf forrereation Preeunrrn Ee eee ure Source: National Water Quay Inventory: 1984 Report to Congress, 1006; 17 paca fl ver ae stroam rls (48 percnt ot constarty ‘towig mie), 2 poco of aka ang rsowo¥ aces, and 78 parcot ot estuanne 2uare mlos wore assosead Lakes | Proposed Metone: By 2005, 0 percent fhe Nao's suas wats wil sport eat ait commas they also report on the quality for fish and shellfish consumption, This indicator shows that 74 percent or ‘more of all assessed river miles, lake acres, and estua- rine square miles ate safe for fish and shellfish con- sumption. EPA is working with the state agencies that issue fish consumption advisories (Indicator 5) to link advisory information with fish and shellfish consump- tion designated use data. INDICATOR 10c: Recreation designated use States and tribes also report to EPA how many of their ‘waters support recreational uses, especially swimming, and boating. Currently, 77 percent or more of all river miles, lake acres, and estuarine square miles that the states and tribes have assessed are safe for all forms of recreation. INDICATOR 10d: Aquatic life designated use The states and tribes also provide EPA with informa- tion on whether their waters can support their aquatic life designated use. Approximately 70 percent of the Nation’s assessed river miles, lake acres, and estua- rine square miles can support the designated aquatic life use. Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions Measures of ambient water quality evaluate the over- all impacts of various sources and causes of pollution and other stressors. Measures of ambient conditions in ‘ground water, surface water, and wetlands—both in the water column and in sediments—cover a range of physi- Note: Related Milestones - The U.S. Department of Health and “Human Services (HHS) in its Healthy People 2000 report has es ‘ablshed targets forthe year 2000 that complemeat the EPA mile stones related to Indicators 10 nd (Oe, The HHS targets are: [By 2000, reduce potential risks to ran health from surface water, ‘a measured by an increase in the proportion of asessed rivers, lakes, and estuaries that support beneficial uses. For recreation ws, {rom 1992 to 2000 the percentages would improve as follows: Riv cer (from 71 percent to 85 percent, Lakes (frm 77 percent to 88 peoeat), and Estuaries (fom 83 percent 91 percent). For con- sumabe fishing use the improvement would be: Rivers (from 89 percent to 94 percent), Lakes (fom 64 percent to 82 percent) and Ertuaris (from 94 pereent to 97 percentEnvironmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States cal, chemical, and biological characteristics of the waterbody. These measures provide critical informa- tion about potential risk to human and ecosystem health (Objectives I and If) and often are evaluated to deter- mine the degree to which there is impairment of a waterbody’s designated use (Objective III. By provid- ing the link to causes and sources of pollution and pol- lutant loadings (Objective V), ambient water quality indicators complete the picture of how the water ob- Jectives support and build on one another (see page ii). FIGURE! The United States does not have a linked national ambient water quality monitoring network that can produce a statistically valid picture of all our waters. In liew of a complete and representative national data set on ambient con- ditions, several sources of infor- mation taken together can pro- vide a national picture of water resource conditions Flowing, River Milea~ States and some tribes report to “ EPA the leading pollutants and ! other stressors they find in the ambient waters they assess, and the leading sources that produce these stressors. EPA publishes this information in the 305(b) re- port. Figure 8 shows the percent and quality of waterbodies as- sessed, and Figures 9a and 9b show the leading stressors and sources of impairment in as- sessed rivers, streams, lakes, res- ervoirs, and estuaries reported by states in 1994, Metals This report uses several sets of these data as indicators. Using these data, we can summari and evaluate trends for selected parameters (Indicators 12, Sur- face Water Pollutants, and 13 and 14, Pollutants in Coastal Wa- ters and Estuaries). In some cases, only a 1-year baseline is presented (Indicators 11, Ground Habitat Alterations Suspended Solis Pertcides Ponty Organic Tore ‘hemiats Soutoe’ US EPA, 1995 Leading Stressors Causing Water Q Percent inpaive River Mes, Water Pollutants, and 15, Contaminated Sediments), with trends to be established at a later date. Based on discussions at the last national water indica- tors workshop in June 1995, potential parameters were selected to express national ambient water quality. Many of the parameters are presented in these indica- tors. Participants in these discussions expressed the im- portance of tracking both ambient water quality and ‘Quality of Assess: River Miles Quality of Assessed} Estuary 84. Good \s Source US EPA, 1995 =S— = =f eeegare E ——=15 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States ETT ‘ 2 '] u Be Be es 3B i oe oa ce ee reins [Proposed Milestone: By 2005, the number of Amencans served by community maaan pollutant loadings (the amount of a pollutant delivered toa waterbody) from both point and nonpoint sources (see Objective V). Future efforts will continue to en- hance and expand ambient monitoring coverage to in- clude key parameters and define methods for summa- rizing data for national reporting FIGURE 9b: Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment ‘Aaricunure ‘Muretpal Point Sources ‘Urban RunofiStorm Sewers |Hyarotogiemabtat Moaineation Industria Point Sources Land Disposat Petroleum Activities Construction Resource Extraction Streamside Vegetation Loss Forestty ‘Unspecinied Nonpoint Source Source: US. EPA, 1995 ent of Impaired River Miles, Lake Acres, and Estuarine Square Miles INDICATOR 11: Ground water pollutants: Nitrate Many contaminants in ground water are naturally oc~ curring. Some, however, are from human activity. Because ground water monitoring is expensive, infor- mation on ground water quality is usually obtained from the monitoring of known or suspected contaminated sites or from specific studies designed to monitor for various contaminants in limited areas. Available data, therefore, do not always provide a complete and accu- rate representation of ambient ground water conditions or the extent and severity of ground water contamina- tion problems, In the meantime, one of the best available sources of ground water data is studies of drinking water supplies. Indicator 11 uses information from rural wells and com- munity water systems to determine the number of people exposed to nitrate in ground water. According to the National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water Wells, a total of 4.5 million people are estimated to be exposed to clevated levels of nitrate in drinking water wells (approximately one-third from rural domestic wells and two-thirds from community water system wells), The survey also found nitrate to be the most widespread agricultural contaminant in drinking water wells, Nitrate is a human health concem because it can cause methemoglobinemia or “blue-baby syndrome.” Nitrate is also an environmental concern as a potential source of mutrient enrichment of coastal waters. Ni- trate contamination of ground water can result from the inap- propriate application of fertiliz~ ers to cropland, where excess nitrate filters down into the ground during rainfall; from the misuse of septic systems; and from the improper disposal of wastewater. Improved understanding of the natural and human-induced fac- tors affecting ground water qual- ity will come about only through research at the federal, state, and private levels. Research is needed to better understand whatEnvironmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States activities affect changes in ground water conditions, to guide monitoring and management priorities, and to evaluate the effectiveness of land and water manage- ‘ment practices and programs. The results of such re- search will be more cost-effective monitoring and a significant expansion and improvement in the infor- ‘mation that can be used for decision making, EPA and other federal, state, and local agencies con- tinue to promote ambient ground water monitoring to characterize the existing condition of the Nation's aqui- fers. Many recent monitoring studies, especially from the U.S Geological Survey, have focused on nitrate as an indicator for the presence of other contaminants, In addition, many studies have targeted other contaminants as indicators of specific types of land use or industrial activities. EPA plans to review all of these studies and use them as a follow-up to the information currently covered by this indicator. Thus, in the future, this indi- cator will provide a more accurate picture of overall ground water quality by including other contaminants, such as pesticides or industrial contaminants, and uses other than drinking water supply. INDICATOR 12: Surface water pollutants EPA and its partners have chosen to track a few of the many constituents that have significant effects on our surface waters. This indicator currently presents the change in concentration levels of six constituents, in- cluding dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nitrate, to- tal phosphorus, fecal coliform, and suspended sedi ‘ments. Data from the U.S. Geological Survey on ambi- ent surface water quality are the best current represen- tation for this indicator. These data show trends in the concentration levels of the six constituents from 1980, to 1989. Increases in the concentration level of dissolved oxygen, which is necessary for fish and aquatic plant life, indicate an improvement in ambient water qual- ity. In contrast, increases in the concentration level of all of the other constituents reflect a decrease in ambi- cent water quality. In the future, trends of other con- stituents might be added to improve this indicator. INDICATOR 13: Selected coastal surface water pollutants in shellfish Pollution in coastal areas is of particular concern given the population concentration in coastal regions and the eerie Srnec Le! ono “1999 joie em aw Suspended Setment ay" aera Fecal coorm sata “ots phosphors — rate sata Disoted sods ey Dissolved Onyeen eer o% 50% 100% {of Sion Sowmng Changes in Cocentation Eevee er 16 ‘Trends in River and Stream Water Quality wen nines neve he concentration ecocenrasoa. Arles were made o das rom USS Nail Seam Quality ‘soirtng Network aon. Ten tao photpers re fon 1921989, [Source US. Gestogcal Survey, 1990, eee ks Cecatceiaislued ona 0% completeness sor gon 2 5 om a 10% | a6% 36% | EF 10%] e* | ” é zm 5 é “son 419% | sans 704 Copper Mercy Lend OOY PCB PAN Sowee: National Gcnani and AmasphercAdmstaton, 1905 ee7 Environmental indicators of Water Quality in the United States importance of coastal waters as nurseries for aquatic life. NOAA collects data on the concentration and ef- fect of persistent pollutants in the coastal waters of the United States. This indicator shows the average con- centration levels of six pollutants in shellfish (oysters and mussels) collected from about 140 locations around the Nation’s coastline. Shellfish serve as good indica- tors because they filter water as they feed and tend to accumulate pollutants, ‘The pollutants shown are six of the toxic chemicals of greatest concem in terms of their effects on fish and other organisms in U.S. estuaries. Three metals and three groups of organic chemicals are included. The metals copper, mercury, and lead are commonly used in our society for many purposes. The use of two of the organic chemicals, the DDT pesticides and the indus- trially important polychlorinated biphenyis (PCBs), was very common until about 20 years ago. Although these chemicals are now banned, they can still be found in the environment. The carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are common constituents of oil and are also produced by the burning of coal and wood. (Cer Er GES eau cette toscon peu ven Hudson River Delaware Bay Chesapeake Bay Neuse River St. Johns River OOsOo00 Biscayne Bay “Trends observed tom 197410 1905 ne Net EPA md NAA dont compe ‘Source:_Netional Qoeanle and Aimoaphere Adminstration, 1995 INDICATOR 14: Estuarine eutrophication conditions This indicator shows changes in specific constituents related to water quality that together can be used to assess the extent of eutrophication within an estuary, and thus assess its health and condition, Eutrophica- tion is a process by which a body of water begins to suffocate from receiving more nutrients, such as nitro- gen and phosphorus, than it can handle. The excess nutrients fuel the heavy growth of microscopic aquatic plants, As these plants die and decompose, the supply of dissolved oxygen in the water is depleted. Oxygen is then no longer available to other aquatic organisms, especially those which live on the bottom, Symptoms of eutrophication include low levels of dissolved oxy- gen, extensive algal blooms, fish kills and reduced populations of fish and shellfish, high turbidity in the water, and diebacks of seagrasses and corals. Estua- rine and coastal waters are monitored to determine if they are receiving too many nutrients and becoming eutrophic. Parameters that are monitored include chlo- rophyll a, nitrogen, other nutrients, dissolved oxygen, and the spatial coverage of seagrassess (or submerged aquatic vegetation), This indicator shows trends in eutrophication-related conditions from the 1960s to 1995 in selected estuar~ ies throughout the country as measured by two differ~ ent data sets. The nationwide framework for the indi- cator of estuarine eutrophication is NOAA’s National Estuarine Inventory, ‘The 129 estuaries contained in the inventory represent a consistent and complete framework for characterizing the Nation’s estuarine resource base. NOAA is collecting information on 16 eutrophication-related water quality parameters for each estuary in the inventory through a knowledge- based consensus process with over 400 estuarine sci- entists. In 1990, NOAA estimated that nearly half the Nation's estuaries were susceptible to eutrophication, In 1992, NOAA initiated its National Estuarine Eutrophication Survey to evaluate which estuaries had problems in the following regions: North Atlantic (16 estuaries), Mid-Atlantic (22 estuaries), South Atlantic (21 estuaries), Gulf of Mexico (36 estuaries), and the ‘West Coast (34 estuaries), This indicator also uses data from EPA’s National Es- tuary Program (NEP). Currently, there are 28 estuaries around the country in the NEP. In many of these estu- aries, state and local managers have identified eutrophi-Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States cation and excess nutrients as critical problems. NEPs are collecting historical and baseline monitoring in- formation to assess the effectiveness of corrective ac- tions being undertaken. Taken together, the NOAA. and EPA efforts will provide the most comprehensive and complete information base possible for the fore~ seeable future INDICATOR 15: Contaminated sediments Certain types of chemicals in water tend to bind to particles and collect in sediment. Chemicals often per- sist longer in sediment than in water because condi- tions might not favor natural degradation, When present at elevated concentrations in sediment, pol- Iutants can be released back to water. Pollutants can also accumulate in bottom-dwelling organisms and in fish and shellfish and move up the food chain. In both cases, excessive levels of chemicals in sediment might become hazardous to aquatic life and humans, This indicator shows the percent of measurements of contaminated sediments that indicate potential risk to ecological and human health by chemical or chemical group. Of the 37 percent of measurements that de- tected contaminant levels, 14 percent exhibited a po- tential risk to human or ecological health due to sub- stances such as mercury, pesticides, PCBs, and PAHs. ‘These levels of concer are based on field surveys, laboratory toxicity tests, and studies of the behavior of chemicals in the environment and in living fish ti sue, EPA collects and analyzes sediment and fish ti sue data from state, EPA region, and other monitor- ing programs as part of the National Sediment Inven- tory (NSI). The goals of the NSI are to survey data regarding sediment quality nationwide, identify 1oca- tions that are potentially contaminated, and describe the sources of contaminants The Importance of Habitat Habitat is an additional indicator that measures ambi- ent conditions. Without healthy habitat, plants and ani- mals cannot survive. Habitat is the area where living and nonliving factors interact to provide at least mini- ‘mal life support for a given species. Habitat important to water quality begins instream (factors such as wa- ter flow rate), includes the riparian zone (habitat bor- dering water), and extends into dry-land habitats where (erervreert UU tie sale trap Massachusetts Bays Long Island Souna Delaware inland Bays Albemarie-Pamiico Sounds ‘Tampa Bay Barataria-Terrebonne Bo Om Gm Bem 2 rae Sowre:_Data rom EPA's National Estuary Program, 1096 [ere ees Cee eR Mad 7 bata [completeness] recegef| Set hcg ah tao pete i J chee / cs Proposed Mitton By 505 pon souer of conta wb coo ‘nO percent the watrates where eden ontammnten hs Fess deterred tbe wtepend19 rainwater and snowmelt carry pollutants over land into water. Although healthy habitat is a key link in understanding our water resources, we are currently unable to report ‘on habitat quality nationally. It is important, however, to use habitat as an indicator regionally. EPA hopes to bbe able to include a national habitat quality indicator in future reports. To fill this information gap, EPA and its partners are placing increased emphasis on supporting habitat quality assessments and developing a habitat quality indicator. One of the first documents issued by EPA encourag- ing states to assess habitat quality is Rapid Bioassess- ment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocols evaluate the quality of, the riparian corridor habitat by comparing the moni- tored stream to a “reference condition” that expresses, the desired condition of the water. Habitat data, together with traditional chemical and toxicity data, enable re- searchers to evaluate biological monitoring data and understand the environmental stressors to the aquatic ecosystem. Some habitat quality stressor information is reported in the National Water Quality Inventory Report to Con- gress. According to the 1994 305(b) Report, states and tribes ranked hydromodification and habitat alteration Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States asa leading source of water quality impairment in as~ sessed waters (see Figure 9b). Objective V: Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors Water is affected by stressors from both natural and human activities. Habitat alteration, for instance, can cause major water quality degradation. However, de~ termining where the stressors come from is not al- ways easy. Stressor indicators are the link between ‘management programs, which are usually designed to prevent or reduce stressors, and the condition of the environment. The following indicators present information on the sources of pollutant loads for se- lected pollutants. A pollutant load is the mass of a pollutant (e.g., tons of sediment) delivered to the waterbody. Sources of pollution to surface and ground waters are characterized as point and nonpoint. Point source pollution usually enters waters through a specific point, such as a pipe. Ground water can be contami- nated by point source pollution through underground injection of waste. Nonpoint source pollution typi- cally is carried in rainwater and snowmelt runoff over and through land to surface water, or in water that seeps through soils to un- derground aquifers. ‘Source: US. Geological Survey FIGURE 10: Estimated Share of Nitrogen Delivered to Streams by Point and Nonpoint Sources seem rane co Toy. TK Ya AR Annee Major accomplishments of the past several decades include con- trolling industrial discharges, providing adequate wastewater treatment to a growing popula- tion, and protecting drinking water supplies from underground injection of waste. EPA uses regulations and permit limits to control these point source dis- charges. The sections that follow present indicators to measure our progress in controlling both point and nonpoint source pol- lution, which continue to persist. ‘Todemonstrate the relative con- tribution of point and nonpoint sources, Figure 10 illustrates ‘Nonpoit Soaree © Point SourceEnvironmental Indicators of Water Quality inthe United States how the mix of point and nonpoint sources of nitrogen, entering our streams varies across the Nation. INDICATOR 16a: Selected point source loadings to surface water For surface waters, the major point sources of pollu- tion are sewage treatment plants, industrial facilities, and “wet weather” sources like combined sewer over- flows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and storm water sewers. Sewage treatment plants treat and discharge wastewater from homes, public buildings, ‘commercial establishments, some storm water sewers, and some industries. Many industrial facilities treat and discharge their own wastewater, either directly to nearby waters or to sewage treatment plants, Combined sewers combine storm water and sewage in one sys- tem and, during periods of intense rainfall, can over flow directly to nearby waters without treatment. Fig- ure 11 illustrates the annual amount of pollution dis- charged by these sources. Many pollutants have been identified as a priority or of particular concem, EPA and other agencies with point source loading information have identified a group of toxic and conventional pollutants to track as indicators of progress toward reducing point source pollution in surface waters. Information about these pollutants is contained in EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS). EPA is working to improve the quality of data entered into PCS FIGURE 11: Annual Amount of Pollution Discharged | by Selected Point Sources in order to extract more useful information for each state on whether the amount of these contaminants being discharged is increasing, decreasing, or re- maining stable. EPA is working with other federal agencies like NOAA and USGS to improve the tracking of point source load- ings nationwide, Improvements will include the ability to project expected loadings from sources not covered in national databases like PCS For illustrative purposes, the graph above presents data ex- tracted from PCS on two pol- ‘Sewage Tresment Ponts" ‘Source: US. EPA, 1996 20 INDICATOR 16a: Selected Point Sour Loadings to Surface Water 0% | [lSigificaty increasing toads (<100%) Clinereasing toads EBstabe toads cos | |CaDecreasing toads “iB. ‘Bootamcl eos Semana Perant Sten Soures: Permit Comptance System, 1995 Propeid Mitsione By 5 saree hat eaten public eh splat Garg ran ko Fo hd aust conten il bert by Iutants to be tracked under this indicator—biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and lead. BOD is a mea- sure of pollution expressed in terms of the amount of oxygen needed by micro-organisms to break down waste material. A high level of BOD in- ‘Torte intial! . Oe? aau dicates that there will be lower levels of oxygen available for fish and other aquatic life. A high BOD also indicates possible bacterial contamination from sewage released into the waterbody. In 1995, 66 per- cent of the states reported BOD as either decreasing or stable, while 34 percent reported increasing or signifi- cantly increasing BOD levels. In addition, 48 percent of the states reported either decreasing or stable lead levels, while 52 percent reported increasing or signifi- cantly increasing lead levels. INDICATOR 16b: Sources of point source loadings through class V wells to ground water Major sources of pollution to ground water are septic systems, cesspools, or dry wells used to dispose of in- dustrial and commercial wastewater. Businesses in strip ‘malls and industrial parks and areas that are not served. by municipal sewer systems are likely to dispose of industrial and commercial wastewater in shallow wells or in septic systems that are designed to treat only sani- tary wastes. EPA studies show that approximately 10 percent of the 10 billion gallons of this wastewater con- tains chemicals, such as ethylene glycol. These chemi- er cere aa est ic ea uke nals Coke moked reat, ldnge Source: EPA Otis of Grou Water and Drinking Water, 1096 Proposed Mleeoe by 2005, wel pce anand walneal cand | ete resurcer wil no ger eee adeal wane charge am sec yee Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States cals can pass through septic systems unchanged and eventually enter ground water aquifers while still toxic. As much as 1 billion gallons of untreated chemicals, therefore, have the potential to degrade the water re- sources of 60,000 community water systems and half the U.S. population. One million new septic systems are constructed every year. The number of these systems that will be used for disposal of industrial and commercial wastewater is not, known. Stopping the misuse of these systems is best left in the hands of the public health agencies or other local government agencies that regulate them, Through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Pro- gram, EPA works with other federal agencies, states, tribes, and local governments to address this major point source of pollution. Aside from technical and financial assistance to regulators, the UIC program will provide compliance assistance to commercial and industrial op- erations as part of source water protection programs that will be developed for 30,000 community water sup- plies by the year 2005, EPA will collect annual reports, from states that describe the number of septic systems no longer used for industrial waste disposal (Class V well closures). In the future, EPA expects to report re- ductions in specific point source pollutants to ground water as this indicator is further developed, INDICATOR 17: Nonpoint source sediment loadings from cropland Nonpoint source pollution is a diffuse source that is dif ficult to measure and is highly variable due to different rain pattems and other climatic conditions. In many ar- eas, however, nonpoint source pollution is the greatest source of water quality degradation. Presently, states and tribes identify nonpoint source pollution from cropland, and livestock, urban runoff, and storm sewers as the great- est water quality threat to the Nation’s surface waters, Other nonpoint sources of pollution to surface water in- clude runoff from roads, construction sites, mining, and logging; drainage from waste disposal sites and land- fills; and airborne pollutants that settle in the water In the absence of direct national measures of nonpoint source pollution, national figures can only be estimated. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates, soil erosion with field measurements and statistical models, such as the universal soil loss equation. USDA.Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States tracks and reports progress in reducing erosion rates from the Nation’s agricultural lands through the Na- tional Resources Inventory. This indicator shows the amount of erosion from agri- cultural cropland, Cropland erosion is often, but not always, associated with the delivery of sediment, nu- ttients, and pesticides to receiving waters. Other na- tional measures for nonpoint source loadings are under consideration and may be developed as mote national data become available INDICATOR 18; Marine debris Marine debris includes trash left behind by visitors to the beach, discarded from boats, carried by inland wa- terways to the coast, or conveyed by overflowing sewer or storm systems. As an indicator, marine debris can be useful in ascertaining (1) early warning signs of pos- sible human health risk associated with pollution, (2) biological health risk such as entanglement or in- gestion by wildlife, (3) limits on coastal recreation and fishing, (4) the effectiveness of programs to control or prevent marine debris, (5) the aesthetic value of a coastal area and the economy it supports, (6) ambient conditions, and (7) human health risks through en- tanglement injury or exposure to medical waste. EPA chairs an interagency workgroup on marine de- bris that includes representatives from the National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Park Service, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other organizations, ‘The workgroup has developed a statistically valid meth- odology for monitoring the trends and sources of m rine debris. This monitoring effort will begin in 1996, and data from that year will be used as the baseline for this indicator. Past data, although not collected using a statistically designed protocol, are presented in this re- port to give an indication of the problem. [Proposed este’ By 2008, the sand at of sal onc om agra 2 eer REA sets eas Loadings from Cropland 2.000 ‘nul Rate of Sediment Eston inenon tons) 8 ° ne een Source USDA, National Resource Inventory, 1982 {roplan wl be eed 29 pes fom 1982 Ives 3a 98 men CTI ey eee {Note asi tap are arable by numberof beaches clea | tamer of vtec peocptig, nd meter ceciion cm he ay of etn Source: Center for Manna Conservation, 1996,23 Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States V. Water Quality Monitoring and Information Management ‘ater quality monitoring supplies the data and W information that are the backbone of each of the indicators described in this report. Each indicator is supported by a monitoring network and data systems that provide and store the data. In some cases, we need better, more efficient monitoring, easier ways to access and understand data, and better programs to analyze and present water quality infor- mation. Many public and private organizations, states, tribes, and federal agencies are working to improve monitoring pro- ‘grams across the country to provide better information to ‘measure these indicators. The Intergovemnmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) has already adopted a nationwide water quality monitoring strategy that, when fully implemented, will provide better data for many of the indicators presented in this report VI. Conclusion he indicators presented here are keys to answer- I ing the question “How clean is our water?” Al- though we know water resources in this country have improved considerably since the formation of EPA in 1970, the passage of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, and as a result of the hard work of many public and private partners, we still have prob- Jems to address. All levels of government and public and private entities need to work together closely to improve our understanding of the environment and our ability to protect and enhance it. A critical part of that process is improving the collection and assessment of data. The steps we are taking to improve the indicators are de~ scribed in individual fact sheets for each indicator, avail- able from EPA at the address on the inside back cover. ‘As the indicators are improved, we should be able to more precisely track changes, both positive and nega- tive, in water quality, The status and trends indicator data will be invaluable for targeting resources and for man- aging and improving key water quality programs that protect and enhance public health and the environment. VII. References Objective |: Conserve and Enhance Public Health Indicator 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994. Data ex- tracted from the Safe Drinking Water Information System on the population served by community drinking water systems in violation of health-based requirements Indicator 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994 Data ex- tracted from the Safe Drinking Water Information System on drinking water systems and population served by these systems not meeting filtration require- ments, Indicator 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1994. Data ex- tracted from the Safe Drinking Water Information, System on drinking water systems and population served by these systems exceeding lead action levels. Indicator 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1993. Data from State Biennial Wellhead Reports on the number of states with source water protection programs. Indicator 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sci- ence and Technology. 1994. National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories. Geo-referenced data of state-issued fish consumption advisories. Indicator 6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1990 Data extracted from the 1990 National Shell- ‘fish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters on the number of estuaries providing shellfish approved, conditionally approved, and not approved for human consumption,Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States 24 Objective Il: Conserve and Enhance Aquatic Ecosystems Indicator 7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, 1996. Summary of State Biological Assessment Programs for Streams and Wadeable Rivers. Draft. 1992 and 1994 data on the percent of assessed streams and wadeable rivers with good biological integrity determined through biological monitoring. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Re- search and Development. 1995, Data extracted from EMAP Estuaries: A Report on the Condition of the Estuaries of the United States in 1990-1993 -A Pro- ‘gram in Progress on the percent of assessed estuar- ies with good biological integrity determined through biological monitoring. Indicator 8 ‘The Nature Conservancy. 1994, Data extracted from the Heritage Program Database on the percent of se- lected aquatic species at risk of extinction, critically imperiled, and apparently secure. Indicator 9 Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780s t0 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Data on the amount of wetland acreage loss from 1780 to mid-1980s. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser- vice. 1992. Summary Report National Resources In- ventory. Data on the amount of wetland loss from mid-1980s to mid-1990s. Objective Ill: Support Uses Designated by the States and Tribes in Their Water Quality Standards Indicator 10a - 10d U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wa- ter. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. 1994 data on the percent of assessed rivers, streams, lakes, reservoirs, and es- tuaries that can support (1) drinking water supply, (2) fish and shellfish consumption, (3) swimming, and recreation, and (4) aquatic life. EPA-841-R- 94-001 Objective IV: Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions Indicator 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Drinking Water and Office of Pesticide Programs. 1990. National Survey of Pesticides in Drinking Water. Data on the potential number of people drink- ing water with high levels of nitrate and pesticides. Indicator 12 U.S. Geological Survey. 1993. National Water Sum- mary 1990-1991, Hydrologic Events and Stream Water Quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water Sup- ply Paper 2400. Data on trends of selected pollut- ants found in surface water. Indicator 13 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1995, Data on selected coastal surface water quality pollutants in shellfish. Indicator 14 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi 1995. Data presented in NOAA’s National estua- rine inventory: Data atlas, Volume 1: Physical and hydrologic characteristics. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and As- sessment, 1995, Data from NOAA‘s National Estua- rine Eutrophication Survey Project. US. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. NEP data extracted as of 1996 from continuing monitor- ing programs and synthesis of historical data in in- dividual estuaries. Indicator 15 US. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Sci- ence and Technology. 1993 Data from National Sedi- ment Inventory on the percentage of sites with sedi- ‘ment contamination that might pose a risk to humans and aquatic life.Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States Objective V: Prevent or Reduce Pollutant Loadings and Other Stressors Indicator 16a US. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of En- forcement and Compliance Assurance. 1995 Data from the Permit Compliance System on lead and BOD loadings from permitted facilities. Indicator 16b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 1995. Data from underground injection control state reporting forms on the number of shallow (Class V) injection wells closed annually. Indicator 17 USS. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser- 1992, National Resources Inventory Summary Report. Data on the annual rate of sediment eroded from agricultural cropland. Indicator 18 Center for Marine Conservation. 1995. 1994 U.S. Na- tional Coastal Cleanup Results. Data on the amount of marine debris annually collected from cleanup events from 1990 to 1994. Figures 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Goal statements taken from Environmental Goals for ‘America With Milestones for 2005: A Proposal from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Government Review Draft. EPA 230-D96-002. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996, Selected major rivers of the United States, 9a, 9b. u U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1995, Estuaries designated by EPA and states ‘under the National Estuary Program. US. Geological Survey. 1996. Principal ground wa- ter aquifers of the United States ULS. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Com- merce, 1996, Data on U.S. population and economic growth from 1960 to 1990. USS. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Dominant Cover/Use ‘Types. Map ID:RWH. 1429. Data extracted from the 1992 National Resources Inventory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1995, Data extracted from the Safe Drink- ing Water Information System on the population served by primary water supply sources. U,S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1995, National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. 1994 data on the percent and quality of waterbodies assessed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. 1994 data on the leading stressors causing water quality impairment, USS. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. 1994 data on the leading sources of water quality impairment. US. Geological Survey. 1995. Data on the estimated share of nitrogen delivered to streams by point and nonpoint sources, USS. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1996, Analyses based on EPA support docu- ments for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Pretreat- ment Standards and Toxic Release Inventory data.